Canon and Sony body owners

Not looking for fan boy posts. But people who have used both cameras and have come to the conclusion that one might be better than the other for their needs.

Sony and Canon Owners- a 5D4 v/s a Sony A7111 from your experience with a Sony camera like the A9 or A7R111

I have to get another body this season and Im considering the new Sony A7111 v/s getting the 5D4

What would be the Factors, plus and Minus , on a head to head with a 5D4 and a Canon body based on your experience with Sony and Canon cameras?

I know battery life is no where close to Canon but thats overcome with extra batteries. Im concerned with servo performance and ability of these Sonys to hit a moving target. When I looked into these 3-4 yrs ago the servo performance on Sonys sucked. I have heard from 3 Sony video guys about overheating issues but those may be older models. Not sure about the new models. Also concerned with ability to shoot in rain

So a Sony v/s 5D4 an a head to head for real world use....where does Sony stand based on your experience. I know how good the 5D4 is because I have used it. Talk to me about your experience based on using both camera systems

Thanks in Advance

Mike,

Like yourself I'm a Canon shooter but I'm not really married to the system. I've integrated mirrorless Oly, Fuji and Sony into my kit at different times and it didn't work well for me for the most part. My goals differ from yours in that my interests are mostly travel and wildlife. I see a lot of very tough if not extreme environments and my list of limitations or concerns with Sony probably wouldn't be the same as yours so I'll try to stick to things we may have in common.

I have been eyeing two choices. Either making a major investment in glass (I think I read a post where you were looking at the 400ii DO too) or moving toward an A9. I know a local wildlife photog who uses the A9 and I've been out with him for many sessions and have used the A9 with native glass quite a bit now. Personally I find that the A9 performs very well - even for BIF. The AF system is very robust but my perception is that Canon may have the edge in lower light. If we compare the 5D4 to the 1DXii I think based on your posts you believe the two are further apart than I do in terms of AF. That said, I think the A9 is just as capable as either depending on who is doing the shooting with a little room for condition-specific give and take. In your work you'll likely enjoy the silent shooting and lack of blackout too. EC is a breeze and battery life will be of little concern.

The concerns I have about the A9 are more personal and practical-based as an individual who has a large investment in one system. First, whether I like it all the time or not, Canon is the only system that can cover all my bases. I did turn an A7rii into a useless pile of electronics during a trip in harsh and variable conditions. Initial reports were that the A9 was supposed to be fully weather sealed but at one point that was dropped and we started hearing things like 'weather resistant', etc. This is unfortunate and probably the only major finger-pointing that can be done toward the body. For something touted as a direct competitor to the 1DXII it seems like a giant oversight. This is a huge concern and the first nail in the coffin in my decision to purchase the A9 or not because the service I received from Sony for the A7rii issue was nothing short of a nightmare. I also had an emergency situation in Southern Africa last year and I was able to purchase a Canon charger in rural Namibia. Sony is up and coming but they do not yet enjoy the ubiquity that Canon does in terms of service or general availability. I only have one incident to refer to but I can't see a working pro relying on the kind of service that I received from Sony. This could play into your equation. As stated previously Canon covers all my bases so I find the inclusion of a different supplier into the mix an unnecessary one that adds to confusion and eliminates the redundancy I enjoy with sticking to one system. One weakness that even Sony proponents will admit to is the menu system. I personally didn't find it intuitive and while I might get used to it over time I found using two vastly different bodies impractical. This, on top of dealing with two different mounts. I think the best approach if you want to go Sony is to abandon Canon altogether rather than mixing the two.

The results? When comparing shots with my friend or those taken by myself with either body there really wasn't much of a difference. We were both confused at times about who took which shot with which camera. We see this a lot on the forum where people make a big fuss about switching systems and post photos that are no different than before (although I don't deny that they may enjoy a more pleasant user experience). There is no denying that the A9 is iconoclastic in terms of tech. Maybe I'm not adept enough to take advantage of all the bells and whistles but in the end I didn't find a reason compelling enough to make me jump ship. The extra FPS was nice but not a dealbreaker.

The final nail in the coffin in my desire to buy an A9 is cost. It is hard to justify the switch for little or no gain (IMO). I believe my interest in the A9 was genuine and I maintained an open mind during the evaluation process. We're comparing different technologies but still looking at fantastic cameras all around. In the end though the Sony vs Canon thing feels a lot like Canon vs Nikon. Same old. It is a lot of rhetoric about amazing cameras that offer steller results. You've pressed more than a few shutter buttons in your time. You will find Sony to be a completely different experience but I don't think it will improve your results.

That's my experience, Mike. I'm not the best writer but I hope I was able to provide some insight. Let us know how it goes.

I have spent this week research the 3 A7/A9 models (7R3, 73, and A9). I want to transition because Sony has some very nice functions I could use, but the costs of lenses are throwing me off, and it seems that despite the Sony being able to use Canon glass with the Metabones, accuracy can be missed from time to time, and burst speeds are greatly reduced (50%). I really need the A9 or R3, for sports, but wanted to use Canon glass for a while yet without getting Sony native glass.

Talley just picked up a 7R3... https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1493282

In the 2 Sony threads, one generic III thread and one specific to the A73, there are many diehard Canon owners that are considering, or are in the middle of transition, or at least are picking up a Sony body to see how it fits their lifestyle.

nqjudo wrote in post #18579052
In the end though the Sony vs Canon thing feels a lot like Canon vs Nikon. Same old. It is a lot of rhetoric about amazing cameras that offer steller results.

I own a 6D and shot with a Nikon D750 at a contract gig for a year, this is exactly my feeling on the matter, and while I have not shot with a Sony, i would expect to feel the same. It isn't the major things that make the difference, it's the small things that may or may not be the difference maker to the individual.

Thanks for the insight.

nqjudo wrote in post #18579052
Mike,

Like yourself I'm a Canon shooter but I'm not really married to the system. I've integrated mirrorless Oly, Fuji and Sony into my kit at different times and it didn't work well for me for the most part. My goals differ from yours in that my interests are mostly travel and wildlife. I see a lot of very tough if not extreme environments and my list of limitations or concerns with Sony probably wouldn't be the same as yours so I'll try to stick to things we may have in common.

I have been eyeing two choices. Either making a major investment in glass (I think I read a post where you were looking at the 400ii DO too) or moving toward an A9. I know a local wildlife photog who uses the A9 and I've been out with him for many sessions and have used the A9 with native glass quite a bit now. Personally I find that the A9 performs very well - even for BIF. The AF system is very robust but my perception is that Canon may have the edge in lower light. If we compare the 5D4 to the 1DXii I think based on your posts you believe the two are further apart than I do in terms of AF. That said, I think the A9 is just as capable as either depending on who is doing the shooting with a little room for condition-specific give and take. In your work you'll likely enjoy the silent shooting and lack of blackout too. EC is a breeze and battery life will be of little concern.

The concerns I have about the A9 are more personal and practical-based as an individual who has a large investment in one system. First, whether I like it all the time or not, Canon is the only system that can cover all my bases. I did turn an A7rii into a useless pile of electronics during a trip in harsh and variable conditions. Initial reports were that the A9 was supposed to be fully weather sealed but at one point that was dropped and we started hearing things like 'weather resistant', etc. This is unfortunate and probably the only major finger-pointing that can be done toward the body. For something touted as a direct competitor to the 1DXII it seems like a giant oversight. This is a huge concern and the first nail in the coffin in my decision to purchase the A9 or not because the service I received from Sony for the A7rii issue was nothing short of a nightmare. I also had an emergency situation in Southern Africa last year and I was able to purchase a Canon charger in rural Namibia. Sony is up and coming but they do not yet enjoy the ubiquity that Canon does in terms of service or general availability. I only have one incident to refer to but I can't see a working pro relying on the kind of service that I received from Sony. This could play into your equation. As stated previously Canon covers all my bases so I find the inclusion of a different supplier into the mix an unnecessary one that adds to confusion and eliminates the redundancy I enjoy with sticking to one system. One weakness that even Sony proponents will admit to is the menu system. I personally didn't find it intuitive and while I might get used to it over time I found using two vastly different bodies impractical. This, on top of dealing with two different mounts. I think the best approach if you want to go Sony is to abandon Canon altogether rather than mixing the two.

The results? When comparing shots with my friend or those taken by myself with either body there really wasn't much of a difference. We were both confused at times about who took which shot with which camera. We see this a lot on the forum where people make a big fuss about switching systems and post photos that are no different than before (although I don't deny that they may enjoy a more pleasant user experience). There is no denying that the A9 is iconoclastic in terms of tech. Maybe I'm not adept enough to take advantage of all the bells and whistles but in the end I didn't find a reason compelling enough to make me jump ship. The extra FPS was nice but not a dealbreaker.

The final nail in the coffin in my desire to buy an A9 is cost. It is hard to justify the switch for little or no gain (IMO). I believe my interest in the A9 was genuine and I maintained an open mind during the evaluation process. We're comparing different technologies but still looking at fantastic cameras all around. In the end though the Sony vs Canon thing feels a lot like Canon vs Nikon. Same old. It is a lot of rhetoric about amazing cameras that offer steller results. You've pressed more than a few shutter buttons in your time. You will find Sony to be a completely different experience but I don't think it will improve your results.

That's my experience, Mike. I'm not the best writer but I hope I was able to provide some insight. Let us know how it goes.

Thank you very much for your input. Exactly what I wanted to read and hear. Good, bad and Ugly..let me have it. Again, Thank You very much

I had my eyes on the 5dm4 but with the a73 coming out with such an affordable price I'm seriously considering switching to Sony.

I’ve used Sony A7rii with 85GM, 24-70GM and 35 2.8 zeiss for events, studio, family and video. On paper, it seemed like it had all the useful features. In reality, I could not be happier to go back to 5div. I simply get much better results with it and usability, menu, ergonomics, robustness are not even close. Video AF tracking was nowhere near as reliable or smooth as 5div’s dpaf system with touchscreen. Now, with a7iii they seem to have improved AF, added (mandatory) touchscreen and improved battery life. I have not tried it and I am not sure if tracking touch AF in video and also video IBIS are improved. To top it off, I found Sony files to be very time consuming to process compared to either 6d or 5div files. This is mainly due to substantially different color tuning of Sony sensor vs Canon sensor that impacts both jpegs and raw files. In particular, color balance was consistenly off even outdoors when shooting portraits - green tint, yellow/orange/brown tint are not as trivial to correct with no single preset able to address it. And yes I even tried (awful!) Capture One software to yield nearly identical result to LR only with even more effort. I’ve never had to tune skin tones with 5div which are just perfect to my eyes with no effort whatsoever. With a7riii, Sony apparently tried to address the common complaint of a green tint and added quite a bit of magneta, search for direct comparison between A7rii and A7riii files, the color may have actually gone worse in many scenarios.

I am a hybrid shooter and do not like to color grade video. With 5div, I am always able to achieve great results out of camera with availability of picture profiles and excellent AWB-W. With Sony, I could not deal with color tints/shifts for skin in video and had to shoot log only to find out that color grading of its video files was even more time consuming (and not trivial) effort than color correcting its portraiture raw files. I even went as far as trying Davinci software that is recommended for grading.

Every time I see Sony is announcing a new body packed with useful features, I go back to my Sony folder to remind myself how different the files look and I am not yet tempted to try another Sony model. I’ve used RX100 I, III and V and can tell you that version V didn't have the tint issue (ok colors).

With all this said, I realize that many people are not at all sensitive to however subtle the color tone differences may be. What is subtle for some, may be very significant for me. For what it’s worth, A7rii is very capable for landscapes, scenery where I can’t discern any particular color tints and the output in many cases looks nicer than from 5div. I have very few photographs without people in them so it’s not the deciding factor for me.

Another point I wanted to make is while a7iii is incredibly value priced, one has to consider the cost of the lenses. 85GM, 24-70GM and 70-200GM are quite a bit costlier than Canon’s equivalents and not as good IMO. I can tell you that Canon new 85IS is quite a bit nicer than 85GM in rendering, bokeh and has incredible steadycam like IS for video (second only to 70-300ii).

I do beleive that Sony is to become #1 in FF camera unit sales in the US within a year as I mentioned in another thread so the system very well maybe the future and good investment. I see A models everywhere outdoors in SF Bay and every best buy has a prominent spot for Sony system whereas canon is at the back positioned by sales folks as not modern.

If you look at my gear list you can see I kinda.......maybe like shooting Canon LOL!!! I am considering on getting another 5dmk4 and sell my 5d3....but then I discovered Sony A73 while watching youtube videos

I've put my name in the A7iii pre order list locally the next day after discovering it!!!

At this moment in time I have zero itch to sell any of my Canon gear. The 5dmk3/4 simply delivers what I need and it does not hesitate in low light. I just never ever have a feeling that my Canon will NOT deliver......it simply works great!!!

I would suggest to anyone to play with other manufacturers bodies and test for yourself.

If I was making my bread and butter making my money off of photography I would probably NOT adapt metabones to sony. Native glass is the only way you have 100% communication with lens/body.

I'm only buying the Sony because I just wanna look cool LOL!!! Seriously I want to incorporate my Canon glass with a sony body. Later down the road I would like to go native glass if I like sony enough to invest more into it. At the end of the day it's still a good $3500 bucks CDN to play with an impressive (on paper) A73.

I will continue to love my hipster Fuji as it works for me for my secondary system.....plus my 11 and 8 yrs old kids use it

Sony seems to be something to bridge my canon into a new system. In due time I am going to buy the 25 f/2 batis and 85 f/1.8 for a killer starter kit. Later I'll see where Sony takes me and if I like it enough I'll look into the A7rmk3. G master lenses is a consideration if I get serious with Sony.

I will say I have extreme comfort shooting Canon for hired events with zero concerns of hunting AF and I get clean iso that I am happy with. I bought into Fuji but it will only remain as a secondary system as I do not feel comfortable with the AF in low light. Some have no issues but I am not one of them. I will try Sony out and see how it performs in low light and see if there is any hunting/AF failure like my Fuji. Regardless I hope I like sony and will make a small kit to enjoy as another camera system but at least I know in low light I will get clean files.

artsf wrote in post #18580055
I’ve used Sony A7rii with 85GM, 24-70GM and 35 2.8 zeiss for events, studio, family and video. On paper, it seemed like it had all the useful features. In reality, I could not be happier to go back to 5div. I simply get much better results with it and usability, menu, ergonomics, robustness are not even close. Video AF tracking was nowhere near as reliable or smooth as 5div’s dpaf system with touchscreen. Now, with a7iii they seem to have improved AF, added (mandatory) touchscreen and improved battery life. I have not tried it and I am not sure if tracking touch AF in video and also video IBIS are improved. To top it off, I found Sony files to be very time consuming to process compared to either 6d or 5div files. This is mainly due to substantially different color tuning of Sony sensor vs Canon sensor that impacts both jpegs and raw files. In particular, color balance was consistenly off even outdoors when shooting portraits - green tint, yellow/orange/brown tint are not as trivial to correct with no single preset able to address it. And yes I even tried (awful!) Capture One software to yield nearly identical result to LR only with even more effort. I’ve never had to tune skin tones with 5div which are just perfect to my eyes with no effort whatsoever. With a7riii, Sony apparently tried to address the common complaint of a green tint and added quite a bit of magneta, search for direct comparison between A7rii and A7riii files, the color may have actually gone worse in many scenarios.

I am a hybrid shooter and do not like to color grade video. With 5div, I am always able to achieve great results out of camera with availability of picture profiles and excellent AWB-W. With Sony, I could not deal with color tints/shifts for skin in video and had to shoot log only to find out that color grading of its video files was even more time consuming (and not trivial) effort than color correcting its portraiture raw files. I even went as far as trying Davinci software that is recommended for grading.

Every time I see Sony is announcing a new body packed with useful features, I go back to my Sony folder to remind myself how different the files look and I am not yet tempted to try another Sony model. I’ve used RX100 I, III and V and can tell you that version V didn't have the tint issue (ok colors).

With all this said, I realize that many people are not at all sensitive to however subtle the color tone differences may be. What is subtle for some, may be very significant for me. For what it’s worth, A7rii is very capable for landscapes, scenery where I can’t discern any particular color tints and the output in many cases looks nicer than from 5div. I have very few photographs without people in them so it’s not the deciding factor for me.

Another point I wanted to make is while a7iii is incredibly value priced, one has to consider the cost of the lenses. 85GM, 24-70GM and 70-200GM are quite a bit costlier than Canon’s equivalents and not as good IMO. I can tell you that Canon new 85IS is quite a bit nicer than 85GM in rendering, bokeh and has incredible steadycam like IS for video (second only to 70-300ii).

I do beleive that Sony is to become #1 in FF camera unit sales in the US within a year as I mentioned in another thread so the system very well maybe the future and good investment. I see A models everywhere outdoors in SF Bay and every best buy has a prominent spot for Sony system whereas canon is at the back positioned by sales folks as not modern.

The colors between Canon and Sony are different, but if you shoot raw, you can achieve the same output. i.e. I shoot Sony, my second shooters tend to shoot something else. And I can get the colors looking roughly identical in post. I process files from all sorts of cameras. I don't find Sony any better or worse than others. Different in terms of starting point yes, but not in a bad way, and nothing that can't be normalized. Canon has it's own tendencies in terms of colors that need to be dealt with (aggressive red channel)


Canon 6D:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/YTuP​yi

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/YQSY​QQ

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/21sU​wgQ

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/21vH​BNp

I came from Canon and have been shooting sony for a couple of years now. The first iterations of the bodies had some pretty blatant deficiencies that even though I committed to transitioning, involved accepting some compromises...battery life, sluggish operations, no dual card slots, etc etc etc

With the a9, and a7riii, those compromises see for the most part gone, and the considerations to make are more subjective in nature (ergonomics, Evf etc).... But in terms of straight up performance, these mirrorless cameras are basically dslr caliber now.

In terms of why I fully transitioned...for me it came down to AF accuracy. I had been fed up with DSLR's and all its issues with microfocus accuracy when shooting fast aperture, and when I discovered mirrorless cameras do not have that issue, that benefit alone was enough for me to switch, even when the technology was immature and there were other compromises to be made. But again, now that mirrorless cameras are where they are, there is no reason for me to ever consider a DSLR. Eye-AF sealed the deal for me. Game changing feature for anyone who shoots portraits, and no that isn't hyperbole as it literally changed the way I shoot. I run a photography business shooting portraits, weddings, and events, and the system works fine.

YMMV of course. Depends on what you shoot.

Native glass tends to work better than adapted glass...and anecdotally speaking, most who pick up Sony as a second system and don't write it off right away, end up eventually fully transitioning to Sony lenses and getting rid of their Canon stuff. They do this because they like the upsides of Sony, and also because managing two systems is kind of a pain. That transition can be expensive, because Sony does not have the benefit of heaving 10 year old lenses that are significantly cheaper that stuff released in the past couple of years.

I'm actually pretty happy with adapted lenses for my uses, and even after having fully transitioned away from Canon, stepped backwards and picked up some EF glass again. Adapter performance is a moving target though. It improves leaps and bounds between bodies and firmware updates from the adapter manufacturers. Sigma released a new firmware yesterday that really improved the AF capabilities of Sigma glass. Most importantly, you will now track at 10fps. It's only a matter of time before metabones does the same via firmware, as they tend to mirror one another.

I'd pose your same question here if you want a balanced view. :

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18580017

Most people outside of this thread are people who prefered to stay with Canon, as this is a very Canon centric forum. But this is a really active thread of Sony users made up of landscapers, portrait shooters, wedding shooters, sports and wildlife....most don't post outside the sony area, but yeah we all came from Canon:

Regarding AF, the A7III seems to be a different animal than the A7RII though. The A9, A7RIII, and A7III all are a level higher with AF. I am not sure AF is the issue any longer for many, but for some of us Canonites to switch, lens prices to switch out of Canon glass are very high. That is my stumbling block now. I can use Canon glass, but that comes with a compromise when shooting sports.

I think the color can be corrected... I think it will take some time to learn. I'm mean it's a new system. As far as ergonomics... the canon will be better for those who shoot long days in my opinion. Maybe the sony with a grip would be ideal for as a direct comparison as far as holding a long time.

The sony AF system appears to be phenomenal and right now all I have is my adapted stuff and a FE 50 1.8... so I'm looking for a decent 100-400 to try out it's true AF capabilites. The viewfinder response is excellent... I'm floored at how the face detect and eye detect just snap on faster than I can even notice. That is truly amazing.

I still need a bunch more time but right now if your doing portraits then adapted will be awesome. If you need any servo capabilities you need native... this is my experience. I've tried the 16-35 2.8 III and the 200L. For me the metebones V doesn't work well for canon but works awesome for sigma but it still does not give you the full servo needs you really need to get the most out of the system. EVERY adapted lens has many focus zones turned off. You get wide, center and S/M/L spot. Some of the other options aren't there.

I find the menu of the sony good. Joystick is as responsive as the DSLR's. The ONLY major pitfall is the glass cost. I'm OK with doing the swap 100%... but seems counter productive to swap and cost much more.

Now... this is all my opinion from being a "dad" type shooter. I shoot my kids and other things as I want. I've only put about 800 images through the R3. I want to try a decent sony glass before I draw a conclusion. The big thing for me is I can shoot sony even if I go native with the same heavy 2.8 zooms but then I can also travel with 2.8/1.8 primes and/or F4 zooms and use the same body. This was the biggest reason for me to wanting to swap. That and I can video through the viewfinder at events where photography is allowed but video is not I mean... cmon'. I am a dad.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18580215
Regarding AF, the A7III seems to be a different animal than the A7RII though. The A9, A7RIII, and A7III all are a level higher with AF. I am not sure AF is the issue any longer for many, but for some of us Canonites to switch, lens prices to switch out of Canon glass are very high. That is my stumbling block now. I can use Canon glass, but that comes with a compromise when shooting sports.

I can tell you right now with what you shoot and me following your posts the past 5 years that if you wanted to go sony... you absolutely have to have the sony glass. No other way around it. Just speaking what I feel is accurate. Sony w/ adapted for sports reminds me of shooting a SL-1 and say a Tamron 17-50... in fact I think the SL-1 and 17-50 could fair a bit better tracking to be honest.

Talley wrote in post #18580238
I can tell you right now with what you shoot and me following your posts the past 5 years that if you wanted to go sony... you absolutely have to have the sony glass. No other way around it. Just speaking what I feel is accurate. Sony w/ adapted for sports reminds me of shooting a SL-1 and say a Tamron 17-50... in fact I think the SL-1 and 17-50 could fair a bit better tracking to be honest.

That is the same conclusion I am drawing here. So perhaps what I might do is just forget about Sony for sports. Instead the A7III for $2K might be enough, plus a $400 adapter, and I can do senior portraits, family portraits and other things with Sony. I really want 20fps, eye AF, and focus peaking on a sport-oriented body, but I refuse to spend $5000 in lenses where $2800 in Canon that I already own can already provide.

The alternative to this is to just sell the 7D2, and get a 1DX2. The price delta here is the same as just adding an A7RIII to the stables. Then I get the AF, 14fps, but not quite the resolution, and lose the eye AF that I think I really want. Plus a huge body, yippee...

I have 3 big events to get through first before I do anything (tax and auto registration season, b-days and anniversary, and then a wedding). There is probably $6K wrapped up in just these events.

Talley wrote in post #18580238
I can tell you right now with what you shoot and me following your posts the past 5 years that if you wanted to go sony... you absolutely have to have the sony glass. No other way around it. Just speaking what I feel is accurate. Sony w/ adapted for sports reminds me of shooting a SL-1 and say a Tamron 17-50... in fact I think the SL-1 and 17-50 could fair a bit better tracking to be honest.

It depends on what you shoot though. Adapted glass isn't really suited for sports. But posed portraiture, landscapes, even weddings, they work fine. I'm shooting professionally with the Sigma 135, and even use my EF 24-70II for things like wedding receptions and it works fine. I also had a chance to play with the 35LII last weekend and have a 50L on loan right now and both lenses behave like native glass outside of the fps limitations.

Where adapted lenses tend to struggle is with lenses that have long focus throws... Mostly telephoto stuff....particularly zooms 70-200mm zooms are staple lenses in a lot of kits, but they tend to not work well. 135mm primes have no issue though.... I'd say that's as long as you'd want to go without running into issues.

Also, the fps limitation can be a deal killer. On the a7riii you're limited to a measly 3fps. A9 gets you a more acceptable 10fps adapted.

I do think that once Metabones gets their firmware up to date with sony's newer cameras that they will get around the fps limitations. The firmware Sigma released yday allows 10fps via the a7riii, but only with Sigma EF lenses.